Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Warlock
I've already spent the money, I might as well get value for it... do you walk out of a movie if it's not 100% enjoyable, after you paid your money and cannot get a refund? I don't and neither do most people from my experiences, but I'm willing to bet that most people do not go see the sequel (which would be the equivalent of buying more flex).

The more time you spend still GLBing, the more time Bort has to recapture your interest. That was my point.

Originally posted by ICRockets
Can someone maybe go a bit more in-depth on the logic behind "We have to do this because if we don't everyone will be forced to use the counter to it and it's no fun when you're required to do certain things to be any good"? I don't really get how that's a problem exclusive to % AEQ. It's pretty much a fundamental tenet of player building.

If you really can't figure out why option A being stronger than option B in every possible situation is a problem, then there's honestly nothing anyone can tell you to ease your ignorance. Might want to do some soul searching or something.

Originally posted by Deathblade
If you really can't figure out why option A being stronger than option B in every possible situation is a problem, then there's honestly nothing anyone can tell you to ease your ignorance. Might want to do some soul searching or something.

That isn't what I asked. What I asked is why it only seems to bother you about THIS Option A.

Originally posted by ICRockets
That isn't what I asked. What I asked is why it only seems to bother you about THIS Option A.

As far as I know, this hasn't been the only change ever in GLB, and isn't even the only change planned for next season.

No clue what you are smokin', but please give me some.

Originally posted by ICRockets
Can someone maybe go a bit more in-depth on the logic behind "We have to do this because if we don't everyone will be forced to use the counter to it and it's no fun when you're required to do certain things to be any good"? I don't really get how that's a problem exclusive to % AEQ. It's pretty much a fundamental tenet of player building.

It's not exclusive to AEQ, but AEQ was easy to remedy. I don't think Bort intended AEQ to have only one right answer. There will always be a limited number of successful build techniques/right answers in this game, but if the number of them can go from 1 or 2 per position to 3-4 per position, it would be a huge improvement imo. Same goes for rosters and tactics, if you have to nerf the only good stuff to make more stuff into viable options, then nerf away. Having something be too good is worse than having something be too bad.

Originally posted by Deathblade
As far as I know, this hasn't been the only change ever in GLB, and isn't even the only change planned for next season.

No clue what you are smokin', but please give me some.

Again, not even remotely what I said. Do us all a favor and leave the conversations to people who get slightly less pleasure from being the biggest jackass on Earth.

Originally posted by Fumanchuchu
It's not exclusive to AEQ, but AEQ was easy to remedy. I don't think Bort intended AEQ to have only one right answer. There will always be a limited number of successful build techniques/right answers in this game, but if the number of them can go from 1 or 2 per position to 3-4 per position, it would be a huge improvement imo. Same goes for rosters and tactics, if you have to nerf the only good stuff to make more stuff into viable options, then nerf away. Having something be too good is worse than having something be too bad.

If Deathblade didn't agree with you he'd point out that you just said good things are worse than bad things.

This also isn't the only example of something being changed because it was the only viable choice.

See: Attribute VAs being far and away better than any other VAs during their first season. They were nerfed in order to make a wider range of VAs more viable choices.

Originally posted by Maddoc
This also isn't the only example of something being changed because it was the only viable choice.

See: Attribute VAs being far and away better than any other VAs during their first season. They were nerfed in order to make a wider range of VAs more viable choices.

And part of that change was the dawn of VAs like Stonewall, Pass Rusher, and Pass Blocker. Why does nobody complain that it's practically required to have these VAs to counteract the opposing line having them? Why doesn't it bother people that there are VAs like Bruiser or 3rd Down Stopper that are obvious choices that everyone needs? % AEQ is not even close to the only "only viable choice" in this game. So why is it the scapegoat? Because it's "easy"? That just screams complacency to me.

Actually fwiw I've complained numerous times that VAs designed to counteract other opposite VAs are a terrible idea. (Pass Blocker and Pass Rusher are by a wide margin my least favorite VAs because of the way they VP tax everyone on the line out of 15 points)

Also, Stonewall is super nice when you can afford it but by no means necessary for every player on the line.

Originally posted by ICRockets
If Deathblade didn't agree with you he'd point out that you just said good things are worse than bad things.

I know it sounds weird, but think about it. There are an infinite number of ways to build a crap player, there always will be. But one build/tactic that is always better than the others will cripple diversity. Creativity is the driving factor is many people playing rpgs, if you can't offer that, you're just asking people to follow instructions

Take a situation with 3 options:

If the options go

A: decent
B: decent
C: crap

you still have a choice between A or B. Unless you want crap.

If the options go

A: Awesome
B: decent
C: decent

There is no choice. It's always A, nobody wants decent when awesome is available.

Therefore "Having something be too good is worse than having something be too bad."

(edited for freak smiley invasion (ecent)

Originally posted by FYNBYAC
The more time you spend still GLBing, the more time Bort has to recapture your interest. That was my point.

Yeah, the same can be said for a movie too. Maybe the first 25-30 mins were uninteresting, but the last 60-90 mins were great... if you had walked out, you would not have been the wiser and since you already paid the price of admission, it's kind of dumb to just walk out early. That's not to say that I haven't sat thru some truly horrendous films in my time.

It's pretty clear that Bort is dividing his user base with these changes, that's not always the wisest of business decisions. It wouldn't be so bad if it seemed like they at least entertained people's gripes a bit (maybe giving us a little data to show why the changes *need* to happen). I think most understand that GLB isn't perfect and making it better is the goal, but sometimes some new perspectives can do wonders from a design/development PoV... as opposed to just band-aiding a bunch of problems.

As a digital artist, we brainstorm before even putting pen to paper to sketch, hashing out as many of the details as possible before hand, so that we don't have "wtf" moments after we've already laid out our pipeline and started production. Pre-production is IMHO vastly under-utilized in GLB and it hurts the design/development areas. Just look at how many changes have come to the proposed archetype system, many little things that should have never made it past the 2nd draft stage of pre-production (yet the way it was presented, it was made out to be like a final draft, just waiting to start production). Just like the +% change hasn't been fully hashed out before being presented IMHO. I can easily see many potential issues with this proposed change... things that have either been ignored or not identified. Like what happens if attributes ever get adjusted? All of these +% changes will have to be rebalanced, wasting resources that could be better used. Another potential issue is what if counter building starts to catch up to this issue? We could very easily end up with the same thing that happened to DEs.

I'm not upset that these changes will nerf my players (only one of them would have been stacking +% gear anyways). I'm upset that this change removes my freedom to build a specific type of player. The +% gear alone, even stacked, isn't all that impressive without the corresponding attributes and SAs to take full advantage of it (which is relative to the contested build of your opponent anyways). I will adapt to the changes, I just think they're a waste of time because they do not address the underlying issues that cause them to be out of control.

my problem with this is that it seems to have already been balanced

a power back with 4 x % break tackles is offset by a LB with 4 x % make tackle... Or am I missing something?

And if those two did not off set; why not fix it with the programing that resolves the % try?

So if ever O has a D counter this is an unnecessary change that will just anger long time players. So, why do it!?!?!?!!

Originally posted by Monster of the Midway
my problem with this is that it seems to have already been balanced

a power back with 4 x % break tackles is offset by a LB with 4 x % make tackle... Or am I missing something?

And if those two did not off set; why not fix it with the programing that resolves the % try?

So if ever O has a D counter this is an unnecessary change that will just anger long time players. So, why do it!?!?!?!!

The problem is that more % EQ is the only counter, forces everyone who wants to be good to only buy % EQ, and three pieces at that.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by ICRockets

That isn't what I asked. What I asked is why it only seems to bother you about THIS Option A.

As far as I know, this hasn't been the only change ever in GLB, and isn't even the only change planned for next season.

No clue what you are smokin', but please give me some.

I'd actually love to know the answer to this. Not too long ago you were against separating SSBs and those with you were literally arguing "it's not an exploit because you can do it too." You quoted those people and never once told them they were idiotic. Now you're mocking people in this thread who said the same exact thing with stacking +%s.

Maybe neither "guarantees" success, but they're both distinct advantages and the most realistic chance of not being beaten by it is to do it yourself. I don't understand how you can be in favor of one and not the other. Everything you're saying in this thread could be applied there.

Originally posted by Deathblade
I mean, the whole concept of "It is balanced, all you have to do to counter it is get it" is just absolutely mindblowing. I'm having trouble grasping how someone can process that through their head, and think it is reasonable.

Yeah, me too. It looks like you simply see which side is more upset and take the other just for the sake of pushing buttons. I'm sure there's a name for that.